I think you are stuck with "top and bottom padding". You might be able to talk about "horizontal faces" but that might not be applicable to all objects or orientations and it certainly doesn't work well as "horizontal face padding".
–
JimSep 28 '12 at 5:27

I'm not sure if you will get an appropriate answer here in case you are working on the CSS of a web-page. Just a thought. Otherwise, @Varagrawal has made a point in his answer. Think about "perpendicular padding".
–
Fr0zenFyrSep 28 '12 at 6:01

If I saw "vertical padding" I would think of padding that was oriented vertically.
–
JimSep 28 '12 at 5:28

1

So it does make sense right, according to the context of the question?
–
VarunAgrawalSep 28 '12 at 5:31

1

No, it doesn't. Vertical padding would be padding affixed to the sides of an object.
–
JimSep 28 '12 at 6:01

1

I am speaking here, about physical objects with spongy material on the sides. IF we are talking about web pages and extra space at the top and bottom of a table or cell in a table, then that's a completely different thing.
–
JimSep 28 '12 at 6:04

2

Since there is an alignment for TDs called "valign" (Verticle Align) that accepts positions "Top","Bottom" or "Middle", then I think that "Verticle Padding" makes sence in this context if you mean padding-top and padding-bottom.
–
TecBratSep 28 '12 at 12:43